TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Farsight]

Farsight, you try reading back through the thread. You raised the Shapiro effect, and then proceded to tell me what I would say about it. I told you to stop putting words into my mouth, and then you kept right on doing it. I made a very simple point, and then you started holding me accountable for arguments that I never forwarded.

Get out of it. I raised the Shapiro Effect because you said I'm talking about measurable, quantifiable observations that any two people can duplicate and agree upon. And then you ducked the Shapiro Effect. And you still try to duck out of it by accusing me of putting words into your mouth.

Farsight, do you understand that "Lorentz invariance" pertains to Special Relativity, while the Shapiro effect is a prediction of General Relativity?

Yes. But I don't see the relevance of this. I didn't raise Lorentz Invariance, and have told BenTheman repeatedly that it's not relevant. Even with a variable c we could never measure it locally.

I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about the diminishing of the radiation rate of the cesium atoms over time, like a clock winding down. That could potentially happen. But there will never be any more or less than 16 ounces to the pound. I can't believe you're still going on about this.

It's important because it's relevant. You said ounces are defined at 16 to the pound, but I can't get you to acknowledge that light defines our time. If there's gravitational time dilation there's a variable c but you can never measure it locally. It is so crushingly simple but you simply won't even consider it. Instead you offer abuse. Check back through your recent posts.

I've read "mass explained". You haven't explained anything, and you haven't solved anything. Let me know when you have at least the lepton masses. Until then, I'm going to go back to working on real physics.

I've explained a lot. Because this is real physics, the best physics you'll ever see, but you skimmed it and dismissed it because you simply cannot believe that a guy on a bulletin board can explain anything at all.

You haven't ever been interested in the logic I present. All you've been interested in is putting words into my mouth and holding me accountable for things I never said.

What logic? Show me some. How about this:

Farsight: You raised it as an objection, pryzk described it as a law, and I said he should be asking why it's a law. A law is a blank wall, not an explanation. ”

Tom2: Of course it's an explanation. An explanation in general is nothing other than a set of hypotheses (the explanans), and a deductively valid argument proceding from those hypotheses whose conclusion is that which is to be explained (the explanandum). In a scientific explanation, the explanans are informed by observing the way matter behaves. Lorentz invariance is just such an explanans.

Interesting logic that: a law is an explanation. And no, I can't see any logic.

http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=1329652

Make a note of Minkowski's spacetime Nearsight, because it isn't going away.

Let's just agree to differ then shall we? Until it does. And meanwhile you can hurl abuse such as "silly" and "insane" instead of actually engaging in a polite rational discussion of this most interesting subject.

 

[(Q)]

I've explained a lot. Because this is real physics, the best physics you'll ever see, but you skimmed it and dismissed it because you simply cannot believe that a guy on a bulletin board can explain anything at all.

From this:

:roflmao:

...to this:

uke:

in one quote. You kill me, farsight.

 

[Tom2]

Farsight, it is you who has been doing the ducking. I raised a simple point about the difference between appealing to scientific laws as opposed to religious laws, and all you've done in response is tell me what I think about your essays and what I've said about your arguments, despite the fact that I've never made the statements you said I did. You're still telling me what I think and why I think it. In that respect you're no different from CANGAS or MacM, who constantly attacked points that I didn't make because they were too breathtakingly stupid to address the points that I did make. I'm not doing it again with you.

 

[Farsight]

I duck nothing. Look at my post #81 above. Reasoned, rational, honest, open, addresses all the points. If you'd like me to elaborate further on any particular matter I'll do it. But you seem to be continually ignoring my dialogue in favour of abuse such as "silly" and "insane" along with ad-hominem irrelevance that distracts from the issues raised in the OP.

And you're still duck the observation of the Shapiro Effect. Come on, have a crack at explaining it. It should be straightforward. What's the problem?

And you're still talking about scientific laws? There are no laws in science, it's supposed to be rational, and open to new ideas and the evolution of theory, with nothing verboten. That's why science isn't religion. What you take for "laws" are merely the axioms and postulates of current theory. It sure beats me why an examination of these things we take for granted is met with affront and an undue hostility that attempts to close down the debate before it can start.

 

[darkenergy]

so why can't c be a constant that can be exceeded?
Would this then give an opportunity for negative motion? If there were a possibility for negative motion then there is no need for god to get created in the first place since forward motion and backward motion can exist at the same time. He was already in existence since time and backwards time were there at the same time. It's simple really if you are on one side your perception is that time goes forward. If you're on the other side then your perception is still that time goes forward. It just depends which side of the hemisphere you are on or which side of the earth you are watching the water go down the plug. Maybe I've completely missed the point

 

[Stryder]

Let's say you could move as fast as the speed of light an faster than every moving subatomic reaction. From the relative perception of the universe you would cease to exist. Science Fiction would suggest that perhaps time would inverse, however the reality is that from the Perception of the traveller, the Universe would cease to exist.

Basically if you reached such a breakneck speed, you'd enter a space where there is no energy, since nothing exists. Once in that space you would not slow down or speed up for the lack of friction, in fact you would have no reference of movement in such an absolute space you could suggest that you were actually standing (floating?) still.

Once you break into that space, no matter how much faster you attempt to speed up it won't make time travel by making anything run backwards. After all the Universe is now "Zerod".

However this does suggest that perhaps we aren't as far from the Beginning of the universe as you might think. After all if energy was to be accelerated to this 'Zerod' space, it would begin to occupy it. Namely creating the beginning itself.

This of course touches upon the theory that the universe was a "Big Number Crunch" and such acceleration experiments would actually create potential paradoxes in how the universe was formed. (This of course is Theory)

 

[Reiku]

look farsight, time is not an illusion, time defines space as space will not exist without time. its like woman and man, noone would have much purpose of existence without the other.

But that is only true from a relative-observer dependancy. A few physicists explain that whilst general relativity does not require an observer, special relativity is observer-dependant. Time is brought into explanation in special relativity, and without the observer, the equations couldn't work.

 

[Reiku]

Farsight: I am not sure that the mathematics treats space & time as equivalent.Note that when using Polar or Spherical coordinates, there are dimensions measured as angles instead of as distance. I think this is analgous to relativity mathematics: The time variable (or dimension) is treated differently from the space variables (or dimensions).

I have seen methods using i (square root of minus one) and light speed units with the time variable to make the time variable (dimension) seem like the space variables. I am not sure, but I think this is a gimmick and the time dimension is still not quite equivalent to the space dimensions.

I would not bet real money on the above opinion, but I think it is close to making sense.

Yeh it does. Physics says space, time, matter and energy are all equivilant.